I think to compare Washington to Bush is a tad misguided...For starters, the American Revolution was about representation for (what would become) the US. Iraq was first about WMD, then about Saddam Hussein, then about Iraqi Freedom(c). W could learn a lesson or two from Washington's cherry tree incident.

aye think it is easy to compare bush to washington...both as commander-in-chief moved the forces of our people's independent resolve to defend our interests...for starters, "freedom of the people" is a big interest america has in the world politique...the kurds were systematically being irradicated...towns at a time were being vaporized...even gassed...sound familiar? bush stopped this...

and the war with iraq was also representation for {what will later become} Kurdish Iraq, an area of huge economic interest to the united states.

the continued war in iraq was about three things:...a totalitarian nepotistic regime...human genocide and hydrocarbons...

was aye the only one who thought this was why we were BACK there to finish the job?

sorry...bush has only done what aye hoped he would do...even delaying any comment on the israeli defense of its region, last summer, was a good move by bush... if iraq simmers down sooner than later...that will be the feather in his legacy cap....for now...the kurdish north is safe from the furor.

and aye see you conveniently left out the rooting out of the taliban's control over a country and the targets painted on dr. ayman zawahiri's and osama bin laden's heads.aka AFGHANISTAN.

and in case you haven't noticed the crescentors have been thwarted covertly and publicly by the policies bush has put in place...

not to mention the FACT that there have been no attacks on american soil since bush put his "don't tread on me" warning out there...

trust me when aye write how this translates to the "crescenting guerrillas":..."if you harm the hair of one american citizen on american soil...we are going to go to find out who was behind it and go to your neighborhood and fuching level it. period."

aye don't know if, badlikemug, you think bush was lying when he conveyed this...aye thought he was speaking sober truth...

You actually felt this deserved its own thread? I think your ego is a bit swollen.

Also, why do you continue to talk about the Kurds? They make up 15-20% of Iraq. They also hadn't been "vaporized" (don't try to sex the issue up) since the 80's. You make it sound as if we stopped it just in time. No sir/ma'am, we were several decades late on that issue.

I do like how you took my comments and attempted to twist them around to make me look as if I wanted to hand terrorists a bunch of puppies and flowers, etc...

As for Afghanistan, I don't know if you've noticed, but the Taliban is making a comeback. I partially blame the UN for this, but ultimately, the responsibility rests on our shoulders if you subscribe to the Powell Doctrine.

Also, are you really going to invoke Bin Laden on this issue? He is a 6 ft. man on dialysis and we have yet to find him. I think that our failure to capture him speaks volumes.

Lastly, there haven't been any attacks on American soil. I agree with you on that.

husseins genocidal campagn against the kurds.......war plans to take out hussein....how long does it take to plan an operation? at least an operation of that magnitude...how long did it take usa to get involved in war on ethnic cleansing in the balkans...and how long is it taking us to engage the darfur region...{dictatoral removal and regime change is painstaking business}

and the kurds only make up 15-20% of iraqis?...the key word in that sentence is iraqis...what percentage of americans are african american? so what are you saying? for example...those kurdish voters {after their right to vote had been established} don't count???

taliban is not in charge in afghanistan...they are a well organize guerrilla army...they have moved into another country, pakistan and both bin laden and zawahiri are fugitives...wanted...marked men...who will either wither away and die or be caught or be killed...it will be a "minds and hearts" victory to hear news of that...so the hunt is still on...aye am satisfied...these things take time...hell, we still could be looking for hussein...but as luck has it...he is dead...and {just as important} his sons are dead as well...

and no attacks on american soil...so covertly and publically bush is doing the job we want him to do...too bad that democrats and critics have been powerless to push their weaker agendas...should have thought about that back in 93 when "crescenting guerrillas" bombed the world trade center the first time.

yes...bush has these things in his agenda...and it is pleasing to see that he is as much an aggressive commander-in-chief as washington was.

an interesting comment on washington's resolve and tenacity with the latter half sounding analogous to commander in chief bush's problems...with rank of colonel and responsibility for defending 300 miles of mountainous frontier with about 300 men.

governor dinwiddie appointed washington commander in chief of all virginia forces, in autumn 1755 washington supervised savage, frontier warfare that averaged two engagements a month.

washington's letters showed he sweated a severe challenge: he empathized with the dry plight of the frontiersmen he was protecting. he had not enough boots, lacking supplies, and lacking leaders to keep discipline; all the time having the brakes applied by an antagonistic governor...

You actually felt this deserved its own thread? I think your ego is a bit swollen.

Also, why do you continue to talk about the Kurds? They make up 15-20% of Iraq. They also hadn't been "vaporized" (don't try to sex the issue up) since the 80's. You make it sound as if we stopped it just in time. No sir/ma'am, we were several decades late on that issue.

I do like how you took my comments and attempted to twist them around to make me look as if I wanted to hand terrorists a bunch of puppies and flowers, etc...

As for Afghanistan, I don't know if you've noticed, but the Taliban is making a comeback. I partially blame the UN for this, but ultimately, the responsibility rests on our shoulders if you subscribe to the Powell Doctrine.

Also, are you really going to invoke Bin Laden on this issue? He is a 6 ft. man on dialysis and we have yet to find him. I think that our failure to capture him speaks volumes.

Lastly, there haven't been any attacks on American soil. I agree with you on that.

husseins genocidal campagn against the kurds.......war plans to take out hussein....how long does it take to plan an operation? at least an operation of that magnitude...how long did it take usa to get involved in war on ethnic cleansing in the balkans...and how long is it taking us to engage the darfur region...{dictatoral removal and regime change is painstaking business}

Not 20 years. Darfur is also not even on the table. The Chinese and other members of the UN have energy ties to the gov't of this African nation and thus, do not wish to get involved.

and the kurds only make up 15-20% of iraqis?...the key word in that sentence is iraqis...what percentage of americans are african american? so what are you saying? for example...those kurdish voters {after their right to vote had been established} don't count???

No. You are putting words into my mouth. I am saying that you (in other posts on here as well) have used the Kurds as evidence of how successful Iraq has been overall and your sample size is a bit contained for it to actually be a credible argument. Also, your facts were wrong on the Kurds. You made it sound as if they were being gassed the day before we went in during March '03. That was not the case.

and no attacks on american soil...so covertly and publically bush is doing the job we want him to do...too bad that democrats and critics have been powerless to push their weaker agendas...should have thought about that back in 93 when "crescenting guerrillas" bombed the world trade center the first time.

I am not going to make this a partisan issue. This started because I disagreed with your comparison of Washington to Bush. I still disagree.

If you want to compare the two of them, I think you should do some more reading on Washington. In his farwell address, Washington warned of the United States becoming involved in alliances and dealing with world politics on a global scale. Granted, this was the 18th century, and our young nation was barely holding itself together.

Washington, as Commander-in-Chief, led troops personally into PA to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Some how, I cannot imagine the President putting himself in harms way to lead troops into battle, when he doesn't allow protestors within 100 yards of his person.

Washington was the father of the nation. Beloved by everyone. The only man in history to ever receive unanimious consent to be president. He was loved by all Americans, unlike Bush who is hated by half of Americans. Washington sought to bring Americans together. He believed the presidency should rise above party politics. So much so, that historians are still debating on what party the man would have been a part of. Because, he has characteristics of both the Jeffersonians and the Federalists. He believed the veto should be used in cases where legislation was unconstitutional, not for personal political gain like every president since Jackson has used it for.

Washington put men into his cabinet based on their ability to perform their jobs, not based upon political loyalty. Otherwise, how do you explain the inclusion of Hamiliton and Jefferson, two men who hated one another. This is just a little bit in the differences between the men...there are many more. But the biggest hole in your argument is your juvenile attempt to compare two men of vastly different eras. I don't care how Bush compares to Washington, because I know such arguments are useless. I compare Bush's performance with that of modern day presidents who have faced similar challenges, and I base my opinion on the results of his policies.

husseins genocidal campagn against the kurds.......war plans to take out hussein....how long does it take to plan an operation? at least an operation of that magnitude...how long did it take usa to get involved in war on ethnic cleansing in the balkans...and how long is it taking us to engage the darfur region...{dictatoral removal and regime change is painstaking business}

Not 20 years. Darfur is also not even on the table. The Chinese and other members of the UN have energy ties to the gov't of this African nation and thus, do not wish to get involved.

and the kurds only make up 15-20% of iraqis?...the key word in that sentence is iraqis...what percentage of americans are african american? so what are you saying? for example...those kurdish voters {after their right to vote had been established} don't count???

No. You are putting words into my mouth. I am saying that you (in other posts on here as well) have used the Kurds as evidence of how successful Iraq has been overall and your sample size is a bit contained for it to actually be a credible argument. Also, your facts were wrong on the Kurds. You made it sound as if they were being gassed the day before we went in during March '03. That was not the case.

and no attacks on american soil...so covertly and publically bush is doing the job we want him to do...too bad that democrats and critics have been powerless to push their weaker agendas...should have thought about that back in 93 when "crescenting guerrillas" bombed the world trade center the first time.

I am not going to make this a partisan issue. This started because I disagreed with your comparison of Washington to Bush. I still disagree.

you cannot disagree with the fact that while all presidents fill the shoes of commander in chief as a part of presidential responsibilities...no two presidents have been so robust and unbending with their resolve to protect the usa and her interests as the commander in chief...and neither an antagonistic governor nor an antagonistic party has had enough power to sway the reigns of commander in chief away from these two presidents....perhaps only two other presidents have had as much conviction to the commander in chief aspect of the presidency and that would be madison and lincoln to a degree...

bush has been in the warzone a few times...who had battlefield authority on those occasions?

my comparison of the two men is fervor as commander in chief...simple.

If you want to compare the two of them, I think you should do some more reading on Washington. In his farwell address, Washington warned of the United States becoming involved in alliances and dealing with world politics on a global scale. Granted, this was the 18th century, and our young nation was barely holding itself together.

Washington, as Commander-in-Chief, led troops personally into PA to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Some how, I cannot imagine the President putting himself in harms way to lead troops into battle, when he doesn't allow protestors within 100 yards of his person.

Washington was the father of the nation. Beloved by everyone. The only man in history to ever receive unanimious consent to be president. He was loved by all Americans, unlike Bush who is hated by half of Americans. Washington sought to bring Americans together. He believed the presidency should rise above party politics. So much so, that historians are still debating on what party the man would have been a part of. Because, he has characteristics of both the Jeffersonians and the Federalists. He believed the veto should be used in cases where legislation was unconstitutional, not for personal political gain like every president since Jackson has used it for.

Washington put men into his cabinet based on their ability to perform their jobs, not based upon political loyalty. Otherwise, how do you explain the inclusion of Hamiliton and Jefferson, two men who hated one another. This is just a little bit in the differences between the men...there are many more. But the biggest hole in your argument is your juvenile attempt to compare two men of vastly different eras. I don't care how Bush compares to Washington, because I know such arguments are useless. I compare Bush's performance with that of modern day presidents who have faced similar challenges, and I base my opinion on the results of his policies.

better check and see how many times bush has been in the warzone...who had battlefield authority on those occasions?